purpose of the faculty review
The purpose of the review is to provide direction and advice to the faculty member regarding their progress at Duke. Whether the review is for an initial appointment, reappointment, or promotion, the review process will focus on evaluating an individual's qualifications for a specific faculty title. It is important to maintain a distinction between review and contract renewal. The intent of an ongoing contractual relationship is a requirement for all regular rank positions. Some regular rank non-tenure track positions may be connected to limited-term grants or specific instructional needs. Successful review is not necessarily synonymous with contract issuance or renewal, since this may depend upon funding support or curricular need. Before authorizing a review, the Dean or Institute Director should consider carefully the intention for an ongoing contractual relationship between the faculty member and the University, and the availability of funding support to determine the ongoing status of the position. Contract periods should be synchronized with appointment periods. However, when funding is not ensured for the duration of the contract, the contract should make this clear.
Furthermore, in the event of impending termination, faculty must be notified no later than one year before the termination. Termination of external funding will not result in termination of the Duke affiliation specified in the contract, but it may result in termination of compensation absent other sources of funding. Until a contract expires, the faculty member can apply for additional external funding as a Duke faculty member.
faculty review requirements for accreditation
Duke’s policies require all paid faculty to be evaluated at least once every three years or before each faculty member’s contract ends, in cases where contracts are shorter than three years. This policy enables Duke to be accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SAC) and complies with faculty bargaining unit policies. Units must track information about these reviews in the Faculty Evaluation Tracking tool (dFac).
annual faculty reviews & salary setting
Faculty are reviewed annually by their Chair, Director, Dean, Institute Director, or an approved delegate prior to salary recommendations. Hiring units may require different documents from individual faculty members in preparation for this review. The unit’s guidelines for these annual reviews should be published as a part of the unit’s bylaws or operating procedures. One product of the review should be a written memorandum from the reviewing officer to the faculty member containing a description of how the officer has conducted the review, its findings, and any professional advice the reviewer wishes to offer the faculty member.
Just as appointment, promotion, and tenure dossiers require secondary/joint units to participate in these major personnel evaluations, so too should the officers of secondary/joint units participate in annual faculty evaluations if appropriate. It will be appropriate when such responsibilities have been outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding governing the terms of the joint/secondary appointment.
review for Reappointment
Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook contains guidelines for annual reviews of regular rank, tenure-track, non-tenured faculty.
Initial appointments to regular rank non-tenure track appointments will be reviewed for reappointment (and, when appropriate, promotion) in the penultimate year of the current contract, except under conditions as requested by the dean and granted by the provost. Subsequent review will typically be conducted at least every five years. University policy requires external letters of evaluation only in the case of appointment or promotion to the level of (full) Professor of the Practice, Research Professor, or Clinical Professor. Departments may choose to place a broader requirement in their bylaws. These dossiers do not require a ranking of the candidate among the tenured faculty. The Provost will not review the dossiers for reappointment at the Assistant Professor of the Practice, Assistant Research Professor, or Assistant Clinical Professor level.
Reviews for initial appointments, the first review after appointment, and reviews for promotion should be detailed; reviews for subsequent reappointment may be less detailed. For cases where annual reviews demonstrate that the faculty member clearly exceeds the standards required for reappointment the school or director may authorize an expedited review process for reappointment at the same rank. The dean or director of each school or institute, in collaboration with the faculty, shall determine what materials are required for an expedited or less detailed review, as well as any limitations or restrictions on when faculty are eligible for it.
Review for Promotion
It is the expectation, at both the provostial and decanal levels, that the time line for promotions of faculty holding regular rank, non-tenure track appointments should be comparable to that for faculty in the tenure track ranks. Normally reviews for promotion from the assistant to the associate professor level should be expected to occur no sooner than the end of the second four-year appointment. Similarly faculty in the associate-level ranks are expected to serve for a number of years before being reviewed for promotion to the full level. As with tenure-track faculty, there may be situations where an early promotion review is warranted. However, such promotions will be the exception. It would be prudent for Chairs to discuss anticipated early promotion reviews with the Dean before starting them.